PESO -- A Neighborhood

[P. J. Alling]

I debated a while about posting this but I've decided to after all

http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_aneighborhood.html

No technical data I'm feeling lazy.

As usual comments are welcome but may be totally ignored.

--
When you're worried or in doubt, 
	Run in circles, (scream and shout).

Re: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[Boris Liberman]

Yes of course. I apologize if I mis-quoted you...

Though what I meant does not change. Your comment was perfectly clear
to me... I did not take it in any negative way, of course.



On 7/24/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now Boris, people are going to think that that is what I said.
> 
> I said:
> 
> > It's a nice snap, nothing great, although it provides a nice "feel" for
> the
> > area. Where exactly was this taken? Where does the dirt road lead? Is
> > this a field ready for cultivation, or cleared for building?
> 
> 
> Shel
> 
> 
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Boris Liberman
> 
> > Shel responded that my latest PAW was a good snap, nothing more...
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Boris

RE: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[Shel Belinkoff]

Now Boris, people are going to think that that is what I said.  

I said:

> It's a nice snap, nothing great, although it provides a nice "feel" for
the
> area. Where exactly was this taken? Where does the dirt road lead? Is
> this a field ready for cultivation, or cleared for building? 


Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Boris Liberman 

> Shel responded that my latest PAW was a good snap, nothing more... 

Re: PAW PESO - Owen and His Sign

[Shel Belinkoff]

Interspersed

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Boris Liberman 

> > http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/owen.html
> > 
> > K Body camera, K28/3.5, Fuji Reala
>
> I am thinking of a fill flash here...

I don't use flash.  IAC, I'd certainly not use it situations as when
working with Owen.

>
> I think I would also try to shoot it from different position. For 
> example, I would try to put Owen and his sign to the corner so as to 
> show more of the (sinful) life surrounding him...

I made six or eight exposures from slightly different perspectives.  There
are any number of different backgrounds and things going on in the frame. 
It takes a long time for me to edit a series of similar photos.  

>
> I totally agree with Frank, this photograph makes the viewer think. And 
> as such it is very successful. It's been a long time since you posted 
> your "regular" and good work, Shel.

Thanks ... technically it could be better, but I like Owen - he's a very
quiet, polite, reserved gentleman.  I hope to see and photograph him again.

Re: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[Shel Belinkoff]

Hmmm ... Elliott Erwitt takes a lot of snaps.  His nickname - which he
sometimes stamped his work with - is "Snaps."  Many well known photos have
been described as snapshots, by the photographer who took them to others
who have commented upon them

To suggest that it's a derogatory term is painting the subject with way too
broad a brush, especially when not looked at in context.

To some, and more specifically me, the use of the word "snapshot" is
complimentary to a degree.  It's a good example of a basic, perhaps simple,
subject made with appreciation for the subject but not necessarily with the
intent of making any kind of statement, more a recording of a scene  The
term "nice family snap ..." is certainly not derogatory.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Jostein 

> I would never have dared to classify another photograper's image as a 
> snapshot, though. In the context of commenting someone's pictures, I 
> think it is a very derogatory term. It's like saying "yeah, I can see 
> you didn't really think before shooting this".

Re: PESO - Rock Pile

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!


This is another not so common site in Monument Valley.  From my
recollection, this area had a whole bunch of rocks fall down.  So
there is quite a bit of broken and jumbled sandstone laying around.
Some of it, like this one, have very interesting formations.

Pentax *istD, DA 16-45/4, Polarizer
ISO 400, 1/125 sec @ f/13, handheld
Converted from Raw using Capture One LE

http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/monumentvalley_0331.htm


Somehow it reminds me of Protective Field generator from one of the 
earlier Star Wars movies... ;-)


I think what will have to be done is this. We wait until you make enough 
shots such as this. Then eventually you will have a person exhibition. 
Then we collect some money and present you with some larger format 
camera on occasion of the exhibition ;-).


Boris

Re: PAW PESO - Owen and His Sign

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!


I met Owen this past Saturday.  He was kind enough to let me photograph him
with his sign.  He carries it around to different venues - Saturday he was
at a little Jesus festival in San Francisco - and he has a regular corner
in Oakland where he invited me to visit.  I'll be seeing Owen again, and
probably shooting B&W.  Color, I think, is too intense, certainly in bright
light.  Anyway, there may be more photos and more of a story about Owen as
time progresses.

http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/owen.html

K Body camera, K28/3.5, Fuji Reala


I am thinking of a fill flash here...

I think I would also try to shoot it from different position. For 
example, I would try to put Owen and his sign to the corner so as to 
show more of the (sinful) life surrounding him...


I totally agree with Frank, this photograph makes the viewer think. And 
as such it is very successful. It's been a long time since you posted 
your "regular" and good work, Shel.


Thanks for sharing!

Boris

Re: Amazing capability of RAW

[Herb Chong]

Rob and i were talking about one output channel being clipped.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Mishka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 11:10 PM
Subject: Re: Amazing capability of RAW



i don't think this statement is true.

-- if you take the words lierally, *nothing* whatsoever can be done
once the output is clipped.

-- if by "clipped" you mean "has more than one can fit in 8bits/channel",
that's not true either, since you can place 8bit window anywhere on top
of 16, or 10, or however many bits the raw image has

Re: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[Butch Black]

I'll enter the fray.

I think intent has a large part to play in what is or isn't a snapshot. 
Basically, I agree that a snap is more event oriented, whether a cookout, 
vacation landscape, etc. That technical perfection is less important then 
recording the event. (think all the discussions we have had on PAWS 
commenting on " I would have moved a meter to the left") I don't think 
snapshot is necessarily a derogatory term. Like many have already commented, 
it is one type of photography. I bought a P&S camera in the 90's to take 
snaps because I would often not take pictures of things because it required 
10 minutes to pull the camera out of the case, mount the flash bracket and 
flash, hook up the battery pack. It was heavy and cumbersome. I plan to buy 
a pocketable digital P&S this year for the same reason. Some of my snaps 
turned out to be OK photographs as lessons learned have a way of sinking 
into the unconsciousness. I disagree with the implication that a snapshot is 
necessarily an inferior photograph. Different does not mean inferior.


Butch 

Re: What is snapshot? (Correct Answer)

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!


This has been a fun thread, nice to know what everyone thinks.
OK, the DEFINITIVE answer.

Picture this:
You're in the kitchen and hear this screaming/laughing/hissing
noise in the other room.
Rushing out to see what's going on you find the 3 year old holding
the cat, upside down, above his head and spinning in circles.
Knowing you should rush to their aid, but being a photographer,
you grab the digi, turn it on, and grab one quickie for posterity.
You then go save the poor cat/kid.
This = SNAPSHOT

Now picture this:
You've heard somewhere that at a certain date and time a mountain
in Iceland (Scartaris, I believe)allows a single ray of sunshine
to fall on a passage in a crater which leads to the center of the
earth.
Not wanting to miss the event you book passage to Iceland, climb
the adjoining mountain and spend 6 days in blizzards and freezing
rain to position yourself for the perfect exposure.
The 75+ pounds of camera gear slows you down but you perservere.
Finally finding the ideal spot you anchor your tripod firmly with
pitons and settle in to wait.
Discovering that all of your food and water has been lost in the
climb you endure the hunger and melt snow in your already sodden
coat for drinking water.
At the VERY MOMENT you are ready to take the shot you find
yourself accosted by some mad count who wishes to kill you
and take the discovery for himself. 
Cable release in one frostbitten hand, beating off the count

with your trusty backup K-1000 in the other, you get the shot!
This = PHOTOGRAPH

***Everything in between is gray area.***

There, it's settled.

With apologies to Mr Verne;


Don, and all others - I appreciate your answers in the original thread 
and this one. Here is my dilemma...


Let's take the spinning cat example... If done properly (provided no 
cats or kids would be harmed) this can be excellent *photograph* of a 
very funny *moment*. You see, in many cases, photography is also about 
freezing *the moment*. With modern technology it would be really a snap, 
like Cotty said... Remember, some time ago I've been asking about 
shooting a basketball game... I made many snaps and some of them were 
just hilarious.


Let's consider the second example. Say, for some reason, let it be a 
random cloud, the aforementioned raw of light did not strike at given 
time. And so the photographer would still take the picture because he's 
been waiting for this for so long and so much effort was spent. Then of 
course, it could be mighty boring picture that took great many hours of 
preparation and great many liters of sweat and frosted tears to take...


I should say that I am more inclined to agree with Jostein's approach 
and generally tend to support Mishka's opinion too...


No, the original comment on one of my photos had nothing to do with 
this. I understood the commenter perfectly well. It is just that it 
caused my mind to turn in the direction of the question I asked, nothing 
more.


Often I would *see* something, such as the bricks and then take a snap. 
Then I would either review it in my mind's eye, or merely chimping with 
my *istD. And then, conditions permitting, I would go and explore it 
further...


And again, thanks for your responses...

Boris

Re: "crazy" idea for more utility out of old glass on 1.5x DSLRs

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Jul 23, 2005, at 1:36 PM, Cory Papenfuss wrote:

... Basically, it is making a body that has "built-in" a "negative- 
length" macro tube.  It comes with a macro tube on it of the same  
length.  If you choose to *remove* that macro tube, you get wider  
FOV (with a focus shift, of course).  ..


This makes no sense.  You don't seem to understand how lenses work.

Godfrey

RE: What is snapshot? (Correct Answer)

[Rob Studdert]

On 23 Jul 2005 at 21:07, Don Sanderson wrote:

> OK, what would you call a "non-snapshot" photograph?
> (Frostbite optional)

There are many sub-groups, a formal portrait would be one, casual record shots 
(like the ones you make as you dismantle an item for repair) may be another, 
the official pic made at the finish line of a horse race, a set of images made 
with a view to assembling a pano could be casually executed but display obvious 
deliberate intent, police mug-shots etc. IOW it's probably a waste of time 
trying to apply a rigid definition to such a loose term. 


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: What is snapshot? (Correct Answer)

[E.R.N. Reed]

Rob Studdert wrote:


On 23 Jul 2005 at 20:28, Don Sanderson wrote:

 


This has been a fun thread, nice to know what everyone thinks.
OK, the DEFINITIVE answer.

Picture this:
You're in the kitchen and hear this screaming/laughing/hissing
noise in the other room.
Rushing out to see what's going on you find the 3 year old holding
the cat, upside down, above his head and spinning in circles.
Knowing you should rush to their aid, but being a photographer,
you grab the digi, turn it on, and grab one quickie for posterity.
You then go save the poor cat/kid.
This = SNAPSHOT

Now picture this:
You've heard somewhere that at a certain date and time a mountain
in Iceland (Scartaris, I believe)allows a single ray of sunshine
to fall on a passage in a crater which leads to the center of the
earth.
Not wanting to miss the event you book passage to Iceland, climb
the adjoining mountain and spend 6 days in blizzards and freezing
rain to position yourself for the perfect exposure.
The 75+ pounds of camera gear slows you down but you perservere.
Finally finding the ideal spot you anchor your tripod firmly with
pitons and settle in to wait.
Discovering that all of your food and water has been lost in the
climb you endure the hunger and melt snow in your already sodden
coat for drinking water.
At the VERY MOMENT you are ready to take the shot you find
yourself accosted by some mad count who wishes to kill you
and take the discovery for himself. 
Cable release in one frostbitten hand, beating off the count

with your trusty backup K-1000 in the other, you get the shot!
This = PHOTOGRAPH

***Everything in between is gray area.***

There, it's settled.
   



I still think (frost-bite aside) that SNAPSHOTS are a sub-set of PHOTGRAPHS :-)

I agree. And the frostbite thing is outside the subset "snapshot" and 
still inside the group "photograph."

RE: What is snapshot? (Correct Answer)

[Don Sanderson]

I forgot to mention, that's a really cool shot!

Don

> -Original Message-
> From: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 9:11 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: What is snapshot? (Correct Answer)
>
>
> then *this* is clearly a photograph and not a snapshot:
> http://www.stat-arb.org/photos/200303015_barc_L3_01_pr%20copy.jpg\
>
> -- i had read somewhere that somewhere on a different continent
> there's a place called "barcelona"  which is wy cool
> -- i took my 75lbs pack of gear and my 110lbs (at that time)
> girlfriend to
> carry it (at that time this was possible)
> -- flew across the ocean, then flew again, then waited for my bag
> which flew on a separate flight
> -- then drove, then looked for parking, then looked for a place to
> put my tripod on.
> -- then had to fight  off all the teenage girls trying to knock
> the tripod off.
> of course, my girlfriend pretended she didn't care.
> -- i didn't have a cable release, but one can clearly see a LX in my hand.
> KLUNG-CHANG
> -- a PHOTOGRAPH was born!
>
> best,
> mishka
>
>
> On 7/23/05, Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This has been a fun thread, nice to know what everyone thinks.
> > OK, the DEFINITIVE answer.
> >
> > Picture this:
> > You're in the kitchen and hear this screaming/laughing/hissing
> > noise in the other room.
> > Rushing out to see what's going on you find the 3 year old holding
> > the cat, upside down, above his head and spinning in circles.
> > Knowing you should rush to their aid, but being a photographer,
> > you grab the digi, turn it on, and grab one quickie for posterity.
> > You then go save the poor cat/kid.
> > This = SNAPSHOT
> >
> > Now picture this:
> > You've heard somewhere that at a certain date and time a mountain
> > in Iceland (Scartaris, I believe)allows a single ray of sunshine
> > to fall on a passage in a crater which leads to the center of the
> > earth.
> > Not wanting to miss the event you book passage to Iceland, climb
> > the adjoining mountain and spend 6 days in blizzards and freezing
> > rain to position yourself for the perfect exposure.
> > The 75+ pounds of camera gear slows you down but you perservere.
> > Finally finding the ideal spot you anchor your tripod firmly with
> > pitons and settle in to wait.
> > Discovering that all of your food and water has been lost in the
> > climb you endure the hunger and melt snow in your already sodden
> > coat for drinking water.
> > At the VERY MOMENT you are ready to take the shot you find
> > yourself accosted by some mad count who wishes to kill you
> > and take the discovery for himself.
> > Cable release in one frostbitten hand, beating off the count
> > with your trusty backup K-1000 in the other, you get the shot!
> > This = PHOTOGRAPH
> >
> > ***Everything in between is gray area.***
> >
> > There, it's settled.
> >
> > With apologies to Mr Verne;
> > Don
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 2:33 PM
> > > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> > > Subject: What is snapshot? (seriously)
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > Shel responded that my latest PAW was a good snap, nothing
> more... While
> > > I accept what he said, he made me thinking...
> > >
> > > What is a snap shot, really??? What is an opposite of snap shot???
> > > Technically, with modern AF cameras the time spent taking the picture
> > > itself is rather short... So what is a snap shot anyway ...
> > >
> > > Let us be constructive, ladies and gentlemen. I realize this
> can grow to
> > > a long thread and I want it to be peaceful...
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot in advance...
> > >
> > > Boris
> > >
> >
> >
>

RE: What is snapshot? (Correct Answer)

[Don Sanderson]

Lots of effort,travel, selective focus, pretty girls, the works!
Yep, that's a photograph! ;-)

The link works better without the / on the end:
http://www.stat-arb.org/photos/200303015_barc_L3_01_pr%20copy.jpg

Don

> -Original Message-
> From: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 9:11 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: What is snapshot? (Correct Answer)
>
>
> then *this* is clearly a photograph and not a snapshot:
> http://www.stat-arb.org/photos/200303015_barc_L3_01_pr%20copy.jpg\
>
> -- i had read somewhere that somewhere on a different continent
> there's a place called "barcelona"  which is wy cool
> -- i took my 75lbs pack of gear and my 110lbs (at that time)
> girlfriend to
> carry it (at that time this was possible)
> -- flew across the ocean, then flew again, then waited for my bag
> which flew on a separate flight
> -- then drove, then looked for parking, then looked for a place to
> put my tripod on.
> -- then had to fight  off all the teenage girls trying to knock
> the tripod off.
> of course, my girlfriend pretended she didn't care.
> -- i didn't have a cable release, but one can clearly see a LX in my hand.
> KLUNG-CHANG
> -- a PHOTOGRAPH was born!
>
> best,
> mishka
>
>
> On 7/23/05, Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This has been a fun thread, nice to know what everyone thinks.
> > OK, the DEFINITIVE answer.
> >
> > Picture this:
> > You're in the kitchen and hear this screaming/laughing/hissing
> > noise in the other room.
> > Rushing out to see what's going on you find the 3 year old holding
> > the cat, upside down, above his head and spinning in circles.
> > Knowing you should rush to their aid, but being a photographer,
> > you grab the digi, turn it on, and grab one quickie for posterity.
> > You then go save the poor cat/kid.
> > This = SNAPSHOT
> >
> > Now picture this:
> > You've heard somewhere that at a certain date and time a mountain
> > in Iceland (Scartaris, I believe)allows a single ray of sunshine
> > to fall on a passage in a crater which leads to the center of the
> > earth.
> > Not wanting to miss the event you book passage to Iceland, climb
> > the adjoining mountain and spend 6 days in blizzards and freezing
> > rain to position yourself for the perfect exposure.
> > The 75+ pounds of camera gear slows you down but you perservere.
> > Finally finding the ideal spot you anchor your tripod firmly with
> > pitons and settle in to wait.
> > Discovering that all of your food and water has been lost in the
> > climb you endure the hunger and melt snow in your already sodden
> > coat for drinking water.
> > At the VERY MOMENT you are ready to take the shot you find
> > yourself accosted by some mad count who wishes to kill you
> > and take the discovery for himself.
> > Cable release in one frostbitten hand, beating off the count
> > with your trusty backup K-1000 in the other, you get the shot!
> > This = PHOTOGRAPH
> >
> > ***Everything in between is gray area.***
> >
> > There, it's settled.
> >
> > With apologies to Mr Verne;
> > Don
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 2:33 PM
> > > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> > > Subject: What is snapshot? (seriously)
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > Shel responded that my latest PAW was a good snap, nothing
> more... While
> > > I accept what he said, he made me thinking...
> > >
> > > What is a snap shot, really??? What is an opposite of snap shot???
> > > Technically, with modern AF cameras the time spent taking the picture
> > > itself is rather short... So what is a snap shot anyway ...
> > >
> > > Let us be constructive, ladies and gentlemen. I realize this
> can grow to
> > > a long thread and I want it to be peaceful...
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot in advance...
> > >
> > > Boris
> > >
> >
> >
>

Re: What is snapshot? (Correct Answer)

[Mishka]

then *this* is clearly a photograph and not a snapshot:
http://www.stat-arb.org/photos/200303015_barc_L3_01_pr%20copy.jpg\

-- i had read somewhere that somewhere on a different continent
there's a place called "barcelona"  which is wy cool
-- i took my 75lbs pack of gear and my 110lbs (at that time) girlfriend to 
carry it (at that time this was possible)
-- flew across the ocean, then flew again, then waited for my bag
which flew on a separate flight
-- then drove, then looked for parking, then looked for a place to
put my tripod on.
-- then had to fight  off all the teenage girls trying to knock the tripod off.
of course, my girlfriend pretended she didn't care.
-- i didn't have a cable release, but one can clearly see a LX in my hand.
KLUNG-CHANG
-- a PHOTOGRAPH was born!

best,
mishka


On 7/23/05, Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This has been a fun thread, nice to know what everyone thinks.
> OK, the DEFINITIVE answer.
> 
> Picture this:
> You're in the kitchen and hear this screaming/laughing/hissing
> noise in the other room.
> Rushing out to see what's going on you find the 3 year old holding
> the cat, upside down, above his head and spinning in circles.
> Knowing you should rush to their aid, but being a photographer,
> you grab the digi, turn it on, and grab one quickie for posterity.
> You then go save the poor cat/kid.
> This = SNAPSHOT
> 
> Now picture this:
> You've heard somewhere that at a certain date and time a mountain
> in Iceland (Scartaris, I believe)allows a single ray of sunshine
> to fall on a passage in a crater which leads to the center of the
> earth.
> Not wanting to miss the event you book passage to Iceland, climb
> the adjoining mountain and spend 6 days in blizzards and freezing
> rain to position yourself for the perfect exposure.
> The 75+ pounds of camera gear slows you down but you perservere.
> Finally finding the ideal spot you anchor your tripod firmly with
> pitons and settle in to wait.
> Discovering that all of your food and water has been lost in the
> climb you endure the hunger and melt snow in your already sodden
> coat for drinking water.
> At the VERY MOMENT you are ready to take the shot you find
> yourself accosted by some mad count who wishes to kill you
> and take the discovery for himself.
> Cable release in one frostbitten hand, beating off the count
> with your trusty backup K-1000 in the other, you get the shot!
> This = PHOTOGRAPH
> 
> ***Everything in between is gray area.***
> 
> There, it's settled.
> 
> With apologies to Mr Verne;
> Don
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 2:33 PM
> > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> > Subject: What is snapshot? (seriously)
> >
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > Shel responded that my latest PAW was a good snap, nothing more... While
> > I accept what he said, he made me thinking...
> >
> > What is a snap shot, really??? What is an opposite of snap shot???
> > Technically, with modern AF cameras the time spent taking the picture
> > itself is rather short... So what is a snap shot anyway ...
> >
> > Let us be constructive, ladies and gentlemen. I realize this can grow to
> > a long thread and I want it to be peaceful...
> >
> > Thanks a lot in advance...
> >
> > Boris
> >
> 
>

RE: What is snapshot? (Correct Answer)

[Don Sanderson]

OK, what would you call a "non-snapshot" photograph?
(Frostbite optional)

Don

> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 8:53 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: RE: What is snapshot? (Correct Answer)

> I still think (frost-bite aside) that SNAPSHOTS are a sub-set of 
> PHOTGRAPHS :-)

> 
> 
> Rob Studdert
> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
> Tel +61-2-9554-4110
> UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
> Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
> 

RE: What is snapshot? (Correct Answer)

[Don Sanderson]

For some reason my reply made me think of Mark,
let's ask him! ;-)
93% humidity, heat index of 108 F. today in Iowa.
(Nothing better to do than write silly replies.)!

Don

> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 8:53 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: RE: What is snapshot? (Correct Answer)
> 

> I still think (frost-bite aside) that SNAPSHOTS are a sub-set of 
> PHOTGRAPHS :-)
> 

> 
> Rob Studdert
> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
> Tel +61-2-9554-4110
> UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
> Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
> 

RE: What is snapshot? (Correct Answer)

[Rob Studdert]

On 23 Jul 2005 at 20:28, Don Sanderson wrote:

> This has been a fun thread, nice to know what everyone thinks.
> OK, the DEFINITIVE answer.
> 
> Picture this:
> You're in the kitchen and hear this screaming/laughing/hissing
> noise in the other room.
> Rushing out to see what's going on you find the 3 year old holding
> the cat, upside down, above his head and spinning in circles.
> Knowing you should rush to their aid, but being a photographer,
> you grab the digi, turn it on, and grab one quickie for posterity.
> You then go save the poor cat/kid.
> This = SNAPSHOT
> 
> Now picture this:
> You've heard somewhere that at a certain date and time a mountain
> in Iceland (Scartaris, I believe)allows a single ray of sunshine
> to fall on a passage in a crater which leads to the center of the
> earth.
> Not wanting to miss the event you book passage to Iceland, climb
> the adjoining mountain and spend 6 days in blizzards and freezing
> rain to position yourself for the perfect exposure.
> The 75+ pounds of camera gear slows you down but you perservere.
> Finally finding the ideal spot you anchor your tripod firmly with
> pitons and settle in to wait.
> Discovering that all of your food and water has been lost in the
> climb you endure the hunger and melt snow in your already sodden
> coat for drinking water.
> At the VERY MOMENT you are ready to take the shot you find
> yourself accosted by some mad count who wishes to kill you
> and take the discovery for himself. 
> Cable release in one frostbitten hand, beating off the count
> with your trusty backup K-1000 in the other, you get the shot!
> This = PHOTOGRAPH
> 
> ***Everything in between is gray area.***
> 
> There, it's settled.

I still think (frost-bite aside) that SNAPSHOTS are a sub-set of PHOTGRAPHS :-)


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

RE: What is snapshot? (Correct Answer)

[Don Sanderson]

This has been a fun thread, nice to know what everyone thinks.
OK, the DEFINITIVE answer.

Picture this:
You're in the kitchen and hear this screaming/laughing/hissing
noise in the other room.
Rushing out to see what's going on you find the 3 year old holding
the cat, upside down, above his head and spinning in circles.
Knowing you should rush to their aid, but being a photographer,
you grab the digi, turn it on, and grab one quickie for posterity.
You then go save the poor cat/kid.
This = SNAPSHOT

Now picture this:
You've heard somewhere that at a certain date and time a mountain
in Iceland (Scartaris, I believe)allows a single ray of sunshine
to fall on a passage in a crater which leads to the center of the
earth.
Not wanting to miss the event you book passage to Iceland, climb
the adjoining mountain and spend 6 days in blizzards and freezing
rain to position yourself for the perfect exposure.
The 75+ pounds of camera gear slows you down but you perservere.
Finally finding the ideal spot you anchor your tripod firmly with
pitons and settle in to wait.
Discovering that all of your food and water has been lost in the
climb you endure the hunger and melt snow in your already sodden
coat for drinking water.
At the VERY MOMENT you are ready to take the shot you find
yourself accosted by some mad count who wishes to kill you
and take the discovery for himself. 
Cable release in one frostbitten hand, beating off the count
with your trusty backup K-1000 in the other, you get the shot!
This = PHOTOGRAPH

***Everything in between is gray area.***

There, it's settled.

With apologies to Mr Verne;
Don

> -Original Message-
> From: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 2:33 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: What is snapshot? (seriously)
> 
> 
> Hi!
> 
> Shel responded that my latest PAW was a good snap, nothing more... While 
> I accept what he said, he made me thinking...
> 
> What is a snap shot, really??? What is an opposite of snap shot??? 
> Technically, with modern AF cameras the time spent taking the picture 
> itself is rather short... So what is a snap shot anyway ...
> 
> Let us be constructive, ladies and gentlemen. I realize this can grow to 
> a long thread and I want it to be peaceful...
> 
> Thanks a lot in advance...
> 
> Boris
> 

Re: Pentax Profits Fall 42%

[Herb Chong]

about 2/3 were bought new. the used ones have appreciated, but the ones i 
bought new haven't enough yet from their "used" price. if present trends 
continue, in 2 or 3 years, i will break even if i sold. the first year's 
depreciation is the worst.


Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax Profits Fall 42%


Did you buy them all new? The prices for most second hand Pentax lenses 
have been steadily rising. I could sell many of my lenses at a profit.

Re: Pentax Profits Fall 42%

[Paul Stenquist]

Did you buy them all new? The prices for most second hand Pentax lenses 
have been steadily rising. I could sell many of my lenses at a profit.

Paul
On Jul 23, 2005, at 7:12 AM, Herb Chong wrote:

Rob and i have a lot of money invested in top of the line Pentax 
glass. the loss i would take selling them to buy Canon equipment is 
enough to buy a second 1DsMk2 to go with the first one.


Herb
- Original Message - From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax Profits Fall 42%


Hmm. If you seriously believe that there are cameras/lenses better  
suited to your needs, Rob, why haven't you sold off your Pentax gear  
and invested in them?


I guess I don't understand fealty to a camera brand. I buy what  
works, sell off what I've decided isn't of much advantage to me.

Re: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[John Francis]

If that's your criterion, then all of what I do is snapshots.
But I've still got one or two shots over the years that match
up to all the metrics you quote except the 'mainly sentimental'.


On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 08:42:37PM -0400, Kenneth Waller wrote:
> Boris, since you asked..
> My $.02 worth
> A snapshot is..
> A simple photographic recording of a person/place at a point in time. Its
> meaning/value is mainly sentimental. It implies a picture taken with out
> much thought as to photographic considerations (composition, exposure, etc)
> as opposed to a crafted image that has a timeless sense about it and follows
> photographic conventions (proper exposure, rules of thirds etc) and can
> stand on its own merits without explanation from the photographer.
> 
> Kenneth Waller
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Boris Liberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> Subject: What is snapshot? (seriously)
> 
> 
> > Hi!
> >
> > Shel responded that my latest PAW was a good snap, nothing more... While
> > I accept what he said, he made me thinking...
> >
> > What is a snap shot, really??? What is an opposite of snap shot???
> > Technically, with modern AF cameras the time spent taking the picture
> > itself is rather short... So what is a snap shot anyway ...
> >
> > Let us be constructive, ladies and gentlemen. I realize this can grow to
> > a long thread and I want it to be peaceful...
> >
> > Thanks a lot in advance...
> >
> > Boris
> >

Re: Hares Foot

[Kenneth Waller]

Nicely captured. I especially like the repeated, subdued background. Well
seen.

Kenneth Waller

- Original Message -
From: "David Savage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: PESO: Hares Foot


> G'Day All,
>
> I was out in the yard today and this caught my attention:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/aqx4k
>
> It's a cliche I know, but it turned out how I visualised it, so I'm happy
;-).
>
> Comments positive, negative or other always welcome.
>
> Dave
>

Re: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[Kenneth Waller]

Boris, since you asked..
My $.02 worth
A snapshot is..
A simple photographic recording of a person/place at a point in time. Its
meaning/value is mainly sentimental. It implies a picture taken with out
much thought as to photographic considerations (composition, exposure, etc)
as opposed to a crafted image that has a timeless sense about it and follows
photographic conventions (proper exposure, rules of thirds etc) and can
stand on its own merits without explanation from the photographer.

Kenneth Waller

- Original Message -
From: "Boris Liberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Subject: What is snapshot? (seriously)


> Hi!
>
> Shel responded that my latest PAW was a good snap, nothing more... While
> I accept what he said, he made me thinking...
>
> What is a snap shot, really??? What is an opposite of snap shot???
> Technically, with modern AF cameras the time spent taking the picture
> itself is rather short... So what is a snap shot anyway ...
>
> Let us be constructive, ladies and gentlemen. I realize this can grow to
> a long thread and I want it to be peaceful...
>
> Thanks a lot in advance...
>
> Boris
>

A good deal on CF cards

[John Francis]

For those of us near a Frys store, todays specials include
a 2GB Kingston CF card for $99  (supposedly only one per
customer, but it doesn't say that in the advertisement)

Re: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[Rob Studdert]

On 23 Jul 2005 at 21:33, Boris Liberman wrote:

> What is a snap shot, really??? What is an opposite of snap shot??? 
> Technically, with modern AF cameras the time spent taking the picture 
> itself is rather short... So what is a snap shot anyway ...
> 
> Let us be constructive, ladies and gentlemen. I realize this can grow to 
> a long thread and I want it to be peaceful...

To my mind a "snapshot" simply refers to a photograph made in a casual manner, 
there is no hard and fast definition and I don't believe that it infers poor 
image quality or a less than compelling image. A shot made with a LF camera may 
be very deliberate, planned, take a long time to execute and ultimately be 
technically excellent but that doesn't guarantee that the outcome will be a 
good image. 

I wouldn't read too much into the comment that sparked your question, only you 
actually know if you made the image from a "snapshot" state of mind and 
ultimately your viewers see an image which they either appreciate or don't.


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

RE: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[Bob W]

So you've licked a few toads then...

--
Cheers,
 Bob 

> -Original Message-
> From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 23 July 2005 23:22
> To: pentax list
> Subject: Re: What is snapshot? (seriously)
> 
> On 23/7/05, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed:
> 
> >I can't believe you've never shot a firearm. I'm amazed.
> 
> Don't forget I *did* spend some formative years in California ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
>   Cotty
> 
> 
> ___/\__
> ||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
> ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[Mishka]

i believe there's quite a number "I and (Eiffel Tower, Kremlin,
Brooklyn Bridge...)"
snaps being taken every second, with most of them being preconcived.
that is, people go to Brooklyn Bridge to take the snap of them being
there. quite
deliberate, pre-visualized garbage. i've done that on countless occasions.

i don't think there is a single definition of "snapshot" -- it all makes sense
only within the context.

but if you really need a one, here:

---
Snapshot (photography)
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The snapshot is a concept in photography introduced by Eastman Kodak
with their Brownie box camera in 1900: a casual photograph taken
without any particular pre-arrangement, often of every day events.

The snapshot also plays a role as concept of artistic photography, see
lomography.



best,
mishka

On 7/23/05, Larry Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> First I believe that Don's original post is true. As the two root words
> imply a snapshot is a photograph that is done quickly and without much
> thought at the time of the shot. This definition makes no implication as
> to the quality of the photograph, just how it was taken. With this
> definition a snapshot can be a good or even great photograph.
> 
> The second definition, to me, is pejorative in nature and conveys the
> sense that the photograph is not of great value because of its technical
> aspects or subject matter or both. (i.e. "It is just a snapshot.")
> 
> There may be other definitions (oh, the joy of the English langauge!)
> but these are the two that come to mind to me.
> 
> Larry
>

Re: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[Larry Cook]

Normally I just read these threads and almost never post except for the 
odd question seekign information but I find this subject thought 
provoking and decided that I would offer my repsonse to Boris' question.


I believe that there is not a single definition for the term "snapshot". 
I believe that the definition is contextual.


First I believe that Don's original post is true. As the two root words 
imply a snapshot is a photograph that is done quickly and without much 
thought at the time of the shot. This definition makes no implication as 
to the quality of the photograph, just how it was taken. With this 
definition a snapshot can be a good or even great photograph.


The second definition, to me, is pejorative in nature and conveys the 
sense that the photograph is not of great value because of its technical 
aspects or subject matter or both. (i.e. "It is just a snapshot.")


There may be other definitions (oh, the joy of the English langauge!) 
but these are the two that come to mind to me.


Larry


is this a snapshot?
http://www.amherst.edu/magazine/issues/05winter/war/capa.html

basically, my suggestion is "nevermind the definitions".

best,
mishka

On 7/23/05, Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I would say it is a quickly taken shot to record a person,
place or event.
It would be given very little thought as to the technical
details.
Critical focus, composition, exposure, equipment choice,
etc. would all take second place to simply making an
exposure of the "moment".

A not "pre-concieved" shot. Unlike a shot where the picture
is first in your "minds eye" and THEN, AFTER considering
the best way to achieve what you have in mind, make the
exposure. The latter is to me a photograph, the former
a snap shot.

Not unlike "shooting from the hip" versus careful aiming
when using a firearm.

Don

> -Original Message-
> From: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL  PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 2:33 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: What is snapshot? (seriously)
>
>
> Hi!
>
> Shel responded that my latest PAW was a good snap, nothing more... While
> I accept what he said, he made me thinking...
>
> What is a snap shot, really??? What is an opposite of snap shot???
> Technically, with modern AF cameras the time spent taking the picture
> itself is rather short... So what is a snap shot anyway ...
>
> Let us be constructive, ladies and gentlemen. I realize this can grow to
> a long thread and I want it to be peaceful...
>
> Thanks a lot in advance...
>
> Boris
>




 

What is snapshot? (seriously) 
 
Boris Liberman

Re: K15mm for House Interiors

[Cotty]

On 23/7/05, Kostas Kavoussanakis, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Sorry Cotty, but Alma is right: judging from the angles in those shots 
>you are too tall for this house.

The height is not a problem. The downstairs celings are nearly 8 feet.
One bedroom door is 5 feet, no problem. She doesn't like the lack of
natural light, and it's a but short on storage space. You would not
believe the amount of crap we need to haul. She was a squirrel in her
previous life.




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: K15mm for House Interiors

[Kostas Kavoussanakis]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Cotty wrote:




(Don't bother if on dial-up - two dozen shots at about 80 kb each, z.)

I loved the house but my SO didn't, and after an almighty row a few hours


Sorry Cotty, but Alma is right: judging from the angles in those shots 
you are too tall for this house.


Kostas

Re: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[Cotty]

On 23/7/05, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed:

>I can't believe you've never shot a firearm. I'm amazed.

Don't forget I *did* spend some formative years in California ;-)




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[DagT]

På 24. jul. 2005 kl. 00.15 skrev Jostein:



- Original Message - From: "DagT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I think recognition is a key word here.  If you are prepared you 
recognize the situation that fit with what you want and take the 
picture.  If you don´t have a sense of what you want nothing can save 
your pictures.


Preferably a couple of seconds before it happens, though.

Like Precognition...:-)


Which only means that you recognize the situation as it is building up, 
not only at its conclusion.  That´s why you need to be prepared, 
otherwise it is too late when you see it.


DagT
http://dag.foto.no

Re: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[Jostein]

- Original Message - 
From: "DagT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I think recognition is a key word here.  If you are prepared you 
recognize the situation that fit with what you want and take the 
picture.  If you don´t have a sense of what you want nothing can save 
your pictures.


Preferably a couple of seconds before it happens, though.

Like Precognition...:-)


Jostein
(Okay, MikeW. I know you know I was going to say that...)

Re: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[DagT]

I think recognition is a key word here.  If you are prepared you 
recognize the situation that fit with what you want and take the 
picture.  If you don´t have a sense of what you want nothing can save 
your pictures.


DagT
http://dag.foto.no


På 23. jul. 2005 kl. 23.48 skrev Don Sanderson:


That's not fair, now were getting to the talent part.
A part which no amount of preparedness, practice or
equipment compensates for my lack of! ;-)

Don


-Original Message-
From: Bob W [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 4:41 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: What is snapshot? (seriously)


"the simultaneous recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the
significance of an event as well as the precise organization of
forms which
gives that event its proper expression... In photography, the
smallest thing
can be a great subject. The little human detail can become a 
leitmotif."

HCB.

RE: En rit Ca-Bré

[Don Sanderson]

I can understand that.
I wanted to be rich and famous, but being a hermit got in the way. ;-)

Don

> -Original Message-
> From: Bob W [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 4:57 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: En rit Ca-Bré


> This is from the introduction:
> "He wanted fame, on condition that he remained unknown. He manifestly
> intended to die young - but as late as possible. How can you pin down
> someone who, when stopped and asked if he was Henri Cartier-Bresson,
> replies: 'Maybe'?"
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bob
>

RE: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[Bob W]

I can't believe you've never shot a firearm. I'm amazed.

--
Cheers,
 Bob 

> -Original Message-
> From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 23 July 2005 22:06
> To: pentax list
> Subject: Re: What is snapshot? (seriously)
> 
> On 23/7/05, Don Sanderson, discombobulated, unleashed:
> 
> >Not unlike "shooting from the hip" versus careful aiming 
> when using a 
> >firearm.
> 
> I disagree. To me, shooting from the hip requires more care 
> (than -say- careful aiming of the camera using the eyepiece), 
> although i have never shot a firearm so i can't comment on that. 

RE: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[Don Sanderson]

> -Original Message-
> From: Lewis Matthew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 4:55 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: RE: What is snapshot? (seriously)

> It is likely that any definition offered will be both arguable and argued.

Very likely.

>
> Considering the way the term is often used, perhaps a snapshot is
> an image
> made with neither significant thought nor previsualization.

Agreed, nicely put.

>
> Note that I said "perhaps".
>
> Offered peacefully,
> Lewis
>
> _
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today -
> it's FREE!
> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>

RE: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[Lewis Matthew]

From: Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

So what is a snap shot anyway ...


Let us be constructive, ladies and gentlemen. I realize this can grow to a 
long thread and I want it to be peaceful...


It is likely that any definition offered will be both arguable and argued.

Considering the way the term is often used, perhaps a snapshot is an image 
made with neither significant thought nor previsualization.


Note that I said "perhaps".

Offered peacefully,
Lewis

_
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

En rit Ca-Bré

[Bob W]

Today the Amazon Fairy delivered unto me the newly-published biography of
HCB:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/050051223X/qid=1122154679/sr=2-1/re
f=sr_2_9_1/026-6013980-8676436

I have started it, and it is fascinating. So far he has studied composition,
been to Africa and has seen the influential photo by Munkacsi that inspired
him (http://www.funtigo.com/urbanphotos?g=3566187). But he doesn't have a
Leica. 

It won't become the definitive biography, but it fills in many details in
his life that I didn't know before. I recommend it to anyone with an
interest in his life and work.

This is from the introduction: 
"He wanted fame, on condition that he remained unknown. He manifestly
intended to die young - but as late as possible. How can you pin down
someone who, when stopped and asked if he was Henri Cartier-Bresson,
replies: 'Maybe'?"

Cheers,

Bob

RE: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[Don Sanderson]

I think "well it's just a snap anyway" pretty well reflects my
feelings towards what a snapshot is.
When I DON'T feel a need to include that disclaimer, I believe
I've taken a real photograph.

Very well put statements Jostein.

Don


> -Original Message-
> From: Jostein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 4:28 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: What is snapshot? (seriously)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think, Boris, that "snapshot" refers to the state of mind of the 
> photographer at the moment of exposure. It could mean to Shoot On 
> Impulse as in situations that arise so quickly that you don't have 
> time to think if you want to capture it. However, I think it's more 
> common to think of it as Shooting Without Involving Your Brain Too 
> Much.
> 
> I also think it has different meanings in different contexts.
> 
> In the context of describing one's own images, it is used as an excuse 
> for eventual weaknesses in the picture. It is like saying "don't go 
> harsh on me, because I didn't really put my soul in this one", or 
> maybe "this happened so fast I really had no time to think what I was 
> doing". It is also very convenient to resort to if a photo receives 
> harsh critique; "well it's just a snap anyway".
> 
> I would never have dared to classify another photograper's image as a 
> snapshot, though. In the context of commenting someone's pictures, I 
> think it is a very derogatory term. It's like saying "yeah, I can see 
> you didn't really think before shooting this".
> 
> In a "third person" context, the term becomes more general and 
> abstract. The things that comes to my mind are "family albums" as in 
> recording Who Dined With Your Family At The Last Grill Party At Your 
> Summer House, or maybe as randomly collecting images because you're 
> outside airing the dog anyway.
> 
> I would also argue that Lomography is not snapshooting. Simply because 
> a Lomographer is basically very mentally aware of the kind of pictures 
> that is recorded. :-)
> 
> Jostein> 

RE: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[Don Sanderson]

That's not fair, now were getting to the talent part.
A part which no amount of preparedness, practice or
equipment compensates for my lack of! ;-)

Don

> -Original Message-
> From: Bob W [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 4:41 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: RE: What is snapshot? (seriously)
> 
> 
> "the simultaneous recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the
> significance of an event as well as the precise organization of 
> forms which
> gives that event its proper expression... In photography, the 
> smallest thing
> can be a great subject. The little human detail can become a leitmotif."
> HCB. 

Re: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[Powell Hargrave]

Snapshots - 'snaps' has been around for a very long time and I suspect may
have come from the snap the shutter release on a box brownie makes when you
flick it over.

Also used to differentiate casual photos from the posed photos made by
professional studio photographers who's expensive shutters did not snap.

BTW nearly all pro wedding photos originally were posed studio shots.
Guests might take some snaps of the wedding party squinting into the sun
with their box brownies.

Powell

RE: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[Don Sanderson]

Around here "shooting from the hip" has taken on the
meaning of "I don't have time to prepare so I'll do
the best I can with what I have".
Such as having to stand in for an absent employee at
a board meeting, reporting on financial matters. :-(

In old west parlance, you shoot from the hip because
if you try to aim carefully you'll be dead before you
get the sights to your eye.  Double :-(
The time factor is somewhat more crucial than with a
camera.
I agree that shooting from the hip takes a great deal
more preparation and practice, with cameras or firearms.

Don

> -Original Message-
> From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 4:06 PM
> To: pentax list
> Subject: Re: What is snapshot? (seriously)
> 
> 
> On 23/7/05, Don Sanderson, discombobulated, unleashed:
> 
> >Not unlike "shooting from the hip" versus careful aiming
> >when using a firearm.
> 
> I disagree. To me, shooting from the hip requires more care (than -say-
> careful aiming of the camera using the eyepiece), although i have never
> shot a firearm so i can't comment on that. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
>   Cotty
> 
> 
> ___/\__
> ||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
> ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
> _
> 
> 

RE: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[J. C. O'Connell]

Not sure of the best defintion but I would think one
parameter is that the camera/len had to be hand held
by the photographer

-Original Message-
From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 5:29 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: What is snapshot? (seriously)


"with Capa snapping playfully before him in exactly and amazingly the right
place when real shooting came on suddenly."

Yes, I'd say it was a snapshot.
Due to the extremely tragic timing it became a famous one.
It may be argued though that Capa was in a very specific place, at a
specific time, with his equipment chosen to a specific end.

A couple of others have said that they consider a snapshot a category of
photograph. After some thought I tend to agree. Perhaps "pre-concieved" and
"not pre-concieved" photographs would serve better to seperate snaps from
other shots. I think defining the two is quite enlightening, I can rip off
dozens of snaps in no time at all. I can't do that if I take time to create
a mind picture of what I wish to capture and then go about capturing it as
close to that as I can.


Don

> -Original Message-
> From: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 3:23 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: What is snapshot? (seriously)
> 
> 
> is this a snapshot? 
> http://www.amherst.edu/magazine/issues/05winter/war/capa.html
> 
> basically, my suggestion is "nevermind the definitions".
> 
> best,
> mishka
> 

RE: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[Bob W]

"the simultaneous recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the
significance of an event as well as the precise organization of forms which
gives that event its proper expression... In photography, the smallest thing
can be a great subject. The little human detail can become a leitmotif."
HCB.

--
Cheers,
 Bob 

> -Original Message-
> From: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 23 July 2005 20:33
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: What is snapshot? (seriously)
> 
> Hi!
> 
> Shel responded that my latest PAW was a good snap, nothing 
> more... While I accept what he said, he made me thinking...
> 
> What is a snap shot, really??? What is an opposite of snap shot??? 
> Technically, with modern AF cameras the time spent taking the 
> picture itself is rather short... So what is a snap shot anyway ...
> 
> Let us be constructive, ladies and gentlemen. I realize this 
> can grow to a long thread and I want it to be peaceful...
> 
> Thanks a lot in advance...
> 
> Boris
> 
> 
> 
> 

RE: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[Don Sanderson]

Most good wedding photographers I know don't fit into the
"casually handled in technical terms." catagory. ;-)

Don

> -Original Message-
> From: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 3:24 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: What is snapshot? (seriously)
>
>
> i doubt wedding photographers on the list are going to be happy
> if you call them "snapshooters" :)
>
> best,
> mishka
>
> On 7/23/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think I agree for the most part with Don. However...
> >
> > Photographs include snapshots: it's a category or type of photograph,
> > typified by the kinds of pictures you see in a "family vacation
> > album" or "first birthday party album". To me, "snap shots" are
> > subject-oriented record photographs, casually handled in technical
> > terms. They can be planned or posed as well as more spontaneous grab
> > pictures. Good snapshots can be considered an art form until themselves.
> >
> > BTW: "Hip shots" in street photography are often carefully planned,
> > whether or not the viewfinder was used. They're not snapshots.
> >
> > Godfrey
> >
> >
> > On Jul 23, 2005, at 11:48 AM, Don Sanderson wrote:
> >
> > > I would say it is a quickly taken shot to record a person,
> > > place or event.
> > > It would be given very little thought as to the technical
> > > details.
> > > Critical focus, composition, exposure, equipment choice,
> > > etc. would all take second place to simply making an
> > > exposure of the "moment".
> > >
> > > A not "pre-concieved" shot. Unlike a shot where the picture
> > > is first in your "minds eye" and THEN, AFTER considering
> > > the best way to achieve what you have in mind, make the
> > > exposure. The latter is to me a photograph, the former
> > > a snap shot.
> > >
> > > Not unlike "shooting from the hip" versus careful aiming
> > > when using a firearm.
> > >
> > > Don
> > >
> > >
> > >> -Original Message-
> > >> From: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 2:33 PM
> > >> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> > >> Subject: What is snapshot? (seriously)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Hi!
> > >>
> > >> Shel responded that my latest PAW was a good snap, nothing more...
> > >> While
> > >> I accept what he said, he made me thinking...
> > >>
> > >> What is a snap shot, really??? What is an opposite of snap shot???
> > >> Technically, with modern AF cameras the time spent taking the picture
> > >> itself is rather short... So what is a snap shot anyway ...
> > >>
> > >> Let us be constructive, ladies and gentlemen. I realize this can
> > >> grow to
> > >> a long thread and I want it to be peaceful...
> > >>
> > >> Thanks a lot in advance...
> > >>
> > >> Boris
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

RE: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[Don Sanderson]

"with Capa snapping playfully before him in exactly and amazingly
the right place when real shooting came on suddenly."

Yes, I'd say it was a snapshot.
Due to the extremely tragic timing it became a famous one.
It may be argued though that Capa was in a very specific place,
at a specific time, with his equipment chosen to a specific end.

A couple of others have said that they consider a snapshot a
category of photograph.
After some thought I tend to agree.
Perhaps "pre-concieved" and "not pre-concieved" photographs
would serve better to seperate snaps from other shots.
I think defining the two is quite enlightening, I can rip
off dozens of snaps in no time at all.
I can't do that if I take time to create a mind picture of
what I wish to capture and then go about capturing it as
close to that as I can.


Don

> -Original Message-
> From: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 3:23 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: What is snapshot? (seriously)
> 
> 
> is this a snapshot?
> http://www.amherst.edu/magazine/issues/05winter/war/capa.html
> 
> basically, my suggestion is "nevermind the definitions".
> 
> best,
> mishka
> 

Re: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[Jostein]

I think, Boris, that "snapshot" refers to the state of mind of the 
photographer at the moment of exposure. It could mean to Shoot On 
Impulse as in situations that arise so quickly that you don't have 
time to think if you want to capture it. However, I think it's more 
common to think of it as Shooting Without Involving Your Brain Too 
Much.


I also think it has different meanings in different contexts.

In the context of describing one's own images, it is used as an excuse 
for eventual weaknesses in the picture. It is like saying "don't go 
harsh on me, because I didn't really put my soul in this one", or 
maybe "this happened so fast I really had no time to think what I was 
doing". It is also very convenient to resort to if a photo receives 
harsh critique; "well it's just a snap anyway".


I would never have dared to classify another photograper's image as a 
snapshot, though. In the context of commenting someone's pictures, I 
think it is a very derogatory term. It's like saying "yeah, I can see 
you didn't really think before shooting this".


In a "third person" context, the term becomes more general and 
abstract. The things that comes to my mind are "family albums" as in 
recording Who Dined With Your Family At The Last Grill Party At Your 
Summer House, or maybe as randomly collecting images because you're 
outside airing the dog anyway.


I would also argue that Lomography is not snapshooting. Simply because 
a Lomographer is basically very mentally aware of the kind of pictures 
that is recorded. :-)


Jostein


- Original Message - 
From: "Boris Liberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 9:33 PM
Subject: What is snapshot? (seriously)



Hi!

Shel responded that my latest PAW was a good snap, nothing more... 
While I accept what he said, he made me thinking...


What is a snap shot, really??? What is an opposite of snap shot??? 
Technically, with modern AF cameras the time spent taking the 
picture itself is rather short... So what is a snap shot anyway ...


Let us be constructive, ladies and gentlemen. I realize this can 
grow to a long thread and I want it to be peaceful...


Thanks a lot in advance...

Boris

RE: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[Bob W]

I can't tell you what a snapshot is, but I can tell you that all the best
photographs are snapshots.

--
Cheers,
 Bob 

> -Original Message-
> From: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 23 July 2005 20:33
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: What is snapshot? (seriously)
> 
> Hi!
> 
> Shel responded that my latest PAW was a good snap, nothing 
> more... While I accept what he said, he made me thinking...
> 
> What is a snap shot, really??? What is an opposite of snap shot??? 
> Technically, with modern AF cameras the time spent taking the 
> picture itself is rather short... So what is a snap shot anyway ...
> 
> Let us be constructive, ladies and gentlemen. I realize this 
> can grow to a long thread and I want it to be peaceful...
> 
> Thanks a lot in advance...
> 
> Boris
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: PAW PESO - Pigeons

[Jack Davis]

It was a lesson learned. Over time, I've had many
happy accidents, wherein the "keepers" were not
anticipated. (pssst...don't tell anyone)
I hope out Canadian friends send them back again this
Fall.
Remarks appreciated.

Jack



--- Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Jack,
> 
> Good thing you didn't chuck that roll.  This is a
> very cool shot.  I
> suspect some of our Canadian friends would say this
> is about as good
> as a goose can look - far away and no body detail -
> just a
> shadow...
> 
> Nice shot!
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Bruce
> 
> 
> Saturday, July 23, 2005, 10:01:37 AM, you wrote:
> 
> JD> Hard for me to believe now, but I shot a roll at
> Gray
> JD> Lodge WA a few years ago that I came scary close
> to
> JD> trashing without processing. I couldn't recall
> any
> JD> possibilities that might make it worth a basic
> JD> processing cost.
> JD> As you can anticipate, I had it processed and
> printed.
> JD> Am putting up a frame from it.
> 
> JD>
>
http://www.photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=58
> 
> JD> I could sorta see and hear the geese circling,
> but the
> JD> in-&-out sun made my eyes water when I tried to
> JD> include it in a shot of the goose silhouettes.
> JD> With the focus on infinity, I set two stops of
> plus
> JD> compensation, pointed the lens at the sun and
> shot a
> JD> few frames. 
> JD> I "knew" I had wasted those frames as well as
> the rest
> JD> of the roll. Maybe some of you feel I did.
> 
> JD> Opinions encouraged.
> 
> JD> Jack
> JD> --- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> 
> >>   Thanks Jack.  I was going to trash it last
> >> night, but decided, WTF,
> >> I'll post it and see what happens.  Glad you
> liked
> >> it.  The pic somehow
> >> makes me think of a pigeon prison recreation
> yard,
> >> with all the "boids"
> >> hanging out before having to go back to their
> cells
> >> (coops).
> >> 
> >> Shel 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> > [Original Message]
> >> > From: Jack Davis 
> >> 
> >> > Love it! Especially the pigeon line-up against
> the
> >> > base if the back wall. I don't think the pigeon
> >> > distribution could have been better. At least I
> >> > couldn't have improved on it if given a chance
> to
> >> > place them.
> >> > Perspective of verticals in the iron railing
> add
> >> the 
> >> > the needed element for a terrific shot.
> >> >
> >> > Jack
> >> >
> >> > --- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/pigeons.html
> >> > > 
> >> > > K-body, K28/3.5, Fuji Reala ... 
> >> > > 
> >> > > 
> >> > > Shel 
> >> > > 
> >> > > 
> >> > > 
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> __
> >> > Do You Yahoo!?
> >> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> >> protection around 
> >> > http://mail.yahoo.com 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   
> JD>
> 
> JD> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home
> page 
> JD> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 





Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 

Re: PESO: Mendocino Moon Squat

[Jack Davis]

The "lake" is a cloud/fog filled valley. We had just
gained the necessary altitude to be above it.
Cropped a little on right side and, of course, a lot
on the top and bottom.
Thanks for commenting.

Jack

--- "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Nicely composed.  I don't know if it's the size of
> the web image or not 
> but I think there
> should be more detail in the lake. 
> 
> Jack Davis wrote:
> 
> >On the return from our recent coast drive, I
> hesitated
> >for this "drive-by".
> >The scan was conveniently done on the Epson 3170.
> Soft
> >detail is a lot to ask of this scanner.
> >
>
>http://www.photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=59
> >
> >Moon was just beginning its shape-distorting plunge
> >into the lower atmosphere.
> >
> >Comments encouraged.
> >
> >Jack 
> >
> >__
> >Do You Yahoo!?
> >Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around 
> >http://mail.yahoo.com 
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> When you're worried or in doubt, 
>   Run in circles, (scream and shout).
> 
> 





Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 

Re: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[Cotty]

On 23/7/05, Don Sanderson, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Not unlike "shooting from the hip" versus careful aiming
>when using a firearm.

I disagree. To me, shooting from the hip requires more care (than -say-
careful aiming of the camera using the eyepiece), although i have never
shot a firearm so i can't comment on that. 




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[Cotty]

On 23/7/05, Boris the spider, discombobulated, unleashed:

> What is a snap shot, really???

Anything I photograph is a snap. It's only words to me. I put the same
effort into a quick grab of my son at a party as I do to a considered
landscape on a tripod with remote release etc. It's just that the effort
for the party pic is condensed into a short amount of time. It's still
the same effort to me.

HTH


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: "crazy" idea for more utility out of old glass on 1.5x DSLRs

[Cotty]

This link may be of help...






Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: PESO: Mendocino Moon Squat

[P. J. Alling]

Nicely composed.  I don't know if it's the size of the web image or not 
but I think there
should be more detail in the lake. 


Jack Davis wrote:


On the return from our recent coast drive, I hesitated
for this "drive-by".
The scan was conveniently done on the Epson 3170. Soft
detail is a lot to ask of this scanner.

http://www.photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=59

Moon was just beginning its shape-distorting plunge
into the lower atmosphere.

Comments encouraged.

Jack 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



 




--
When you're worried or in doubt, 
	Run in circles, (scream and shout).

Re: "crazy" idea for more utility out of old glass on 1.5x DSLRs

[Cory Papenfuss]

	I see I stirred up a hornet's nest here.  Let me try to clarify a 
few things.


- I *originally* commented on making an optical adapter similar to a 
teleconverter (only wideconverter).  It could be used to "tighten" the 
image circle of 35mm-sized lenses down to APS-sized sensor.


- The second bunch of comments was a "what if."  If one could bring the 
sensor forward in the mirror box (and compensate with a spacer flange out 
front), it would allow more flexibility.  Older lenses could be used 
without the spacer flange and thuns have a  smaller image circle (albeit 
with a focus shift... focusing *beyond* infinity).  New lenses could be 
designed to take advange of the shorter registration distance if 
necessary... or not.  Other brand lenses could be used if there was now 
enough room for a non-optical adapter.


On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:


- How do you drive the older lenses mechanical linkages?

just as you do in extension tubes


Which means that there would be no change from what we have now.

	... except you would have the option of using a *shorter* 
registration distance.  You cannot do that now because the mirror will hit 
the lens.



- More optics in the path means performance degradation.

what "more optics"?


See Bill Robb's post.

	Wrong.  No optics needed for standard K lenses.  Just a simple 
spacer to bring the flange out the same distance the sensor moved forward.



- Reduced room for an adequate mirror, etc with the "new K" standard
lenses.

sure, with smaller sensor size. is that a problem?


They've already reduced the size of the mirror in the D/DS. The size 
reduction doesn't change the basic layout by much, certainly not by 10mm in 
mirror box dimensions.



Maybe not 10mm, but a few probably.


Again, what's the point of it?


See above.


it also means that any "new K" lenses would be completely unusable on
the older Pentax bodies,

and they are not right now anyway (smaller image circle)


Not entirely true. You can use DA lenses on K mount bodies, assuming that a 
24x24mm image circle is enough to satisfy your needs. In some cases, the DA 
lens might cover the full frame perfectly (DA40/2.8 is like that), and 
Pentax' D-FA lenses are fully optimized for the digital sensor while also 
being 100% compatible with 24x36mm format.



Basically the "through" adapter is like a K-mount teleconverter,
but without any optics.

Then it would do nothing other than add complexity to the lens line.

actually, no.


Once again, what would this do that hasn't been done already with the current 
lens mount? It would create a new, incompatible line of lenses, it would 
allow older lenses to be used but only with an adapter. It would NOT change 
the field of view characteristics of the older lenses on the digital sensor 
bodies at all, not without optics to do that, and that would degrade the 
performance of the lenses that you were trying to use as well as cost some 
speed.


Unless you can articulate exactly what benefit this might have, I see no 
advantage to it whatever.


Godfrey


	Basically, it is making a body that has "built-in" a 
"negative-length" macro tube.  It comes with a macro tube on it of the 
same length.  If you choose to *remove* that macro tube, you get wider FOV 
(with a focus shift, of course).  If you remove the macro tube and replace 
it with one that is the same length, but has another brand flange on the 
end, you can now use those as well.


	If the geometry of the mirror box can tolerate this with the 
smaller sensor, I don't see why it couldn't be done.


-Cory


--

*
* Cory Papenfuss*
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student   *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University   *
*

Re: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[Mishka]

i doubt wedding photographers on the list are going to be happy
if you call them "snapshooters" :)

best,
mishka

On 7/23/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think I agree for the most part with Don. However...
> 
> Photographs include snapshots: it's a category or type of photograph,
> typified by the kinds of pictures you see in a "family vacation
> album" or "first birthday party album". To me, "snap shots" are
> subject-oriented record photographs, casually handled in technical
> terms. They can be planned or posed as well as more spontaneous grab
> pictures. Good snapshots can be considered an art form until themselves.
> 
> BTW: "Hip shots" in street photography are often carefully planned,
> whether or not the viewfinder was used. They're not snapshots.
> 
> Godfrey
> 
> 
> On Jul 23, 2005, at 11:48 AM, Don Sanderson wrote:
> 
> > I would say it is a quickly taken shot to record a person,
> > place or event.
> > It would be given very little thought as to the technical
> > details.
> > Critical focus, composition, exposure, equipment choice,
> > etc. would all take second place to simply making an
> > exposure of the "moment".
> >
> > A not "pre-concieved" shot. Unlike a shot where the picture
> > is first in your "minds eye" and THEN, AFTER considering
> > the best way to achieve what you have in mind, make the
> > exposure. The latter is to me a photograph, the former
> > a snap shot.
> >
> > Not unlike "shooting from the hip" versus careful aiming
> > when using a firearm.
> >
> > Don
> >
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 2:33 PM
> >> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> >> Subject: What is snapshot? (seriously)
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> Shel responded that my latest PAW was a good snap, nothing more...
> >> While
> >> I accept what he said, he made me thinking...
> >>
> >> What is a snap shot, really??? What is an opposite of snap shot???
> >> Technically, with modern AF cameras the time spent taking the picture
> >> itself is rather short... So what is a snap shot anyway ...
> >>
> >> Let us be constructive, ladies and gentlemen. I realize this can
> >> grow to
> >> a long thread and I want it to be peaceful...
> >>
> >> Thanks a lot in advance...
> >>
> >> Boris
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
>

Re: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[Mishka]

is this a snapshot?
http://www.amherst.edu/magazine/issues/05winter/war/capa.html

basically, my suggestion is "nevermind the definitions".

best,
mishka

On 7/23/05, Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would say it is a quickly taken shot to record a person,
> place or event.
> It would be given very little thought as to the technical
> details.
> Critical focus, composition, exposure, equipment choice,
> etc. would all take second place to simply making an
> exposure of the "moment".
> 
> A not "pre-concieved" shot. Unlike a shot where the picture
> is first in your "minds eye" and THEN, AFTER considering
> the best way to achieve what you have in mind, make the
> exposure. The latter is to me a photograph, the former
> a snap shot.
> 
> Not unlike "shooting from the hip" versus careful aiming
> when using a firearm.
> 
> Don
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 2:33 PM
> > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> > Subject: What is snapshot? (seriously)
> >
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > Shel responded that my latest PAW was a good snap, nothing more... While
> > I accept what he said, he made me thinking...
> >
> > What is a snap shot, really??? What is an opposite of snap shot???
> > Technically, with modern AF cameras the time spent taking the picture
> > itself is rather short... So what is a snap shot anyway ...
> >
> > Let us be constructive, ladies and gentlemen. I realize this can grow to
> > a long thread and I want it to be peaceful...
> >
> > Thanks a lot in advance...
> >
> > Boris
> >
> 
>

Re: "crazy" idea for more utility out of old glass on 1.5x DSLRs

[Cory Papenfuss]

Hey you've met Cory before ;-)




:P  :)


Actually Cory, my apologies. I wasn't following this thread properly and
I thought you were Cory Waters. So if I may retract the above, and re-
direct it to Ceeb, it's just as applicable !!



Actually, no.  It's a pretty apt description for me as well.

-Cory
--

*
* Cory Papenfuss*
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student   *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University   *
*

Re: "crazy" idea for more utility out of old glass on 1.5x DSLRs

[Mishka]

huh? ever seen m42- lens ->eos adapters?

what i suggested was basically just that: a very shallow body
to use digital lenses, plus old K lenses via a similar adapter
(only with mechanical and electronic linkages)

best,
mishka

On 7/23/05, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Yer adaptor would have to have optics. The flange to focal plane distance is
> part of the lens design. If you change one, you have to either change the
> other (not possible), or put an optical correction in the path to make the
> short back focus you have imposed on the lens possible.
> 
> William Robb
> 
> 
>

Re: PAW PESO - Pigeons

[Bruce Dayton]

Jack,

Good thing you didn't chuck that roll.  This is a very cool shot.  I
suspect some of our Canadian friends would say this is about as good
as a goose can look - far away and no body detail - just a
shadow...

Nice shot!

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Saturday, July 23, 2005, 10:01:37 AM, you wrote:

JD> Hard for me to believe now, but I shot a roll at Gray
JD> Lodge WA a few years ago that I came scary close to
JD> trashing without processing. I couldn't recall any
JD> possibilities that might make it worth a basic
JD> processing cost.
JD> As you can anticipate, I had it processed and printed.
JD> Am putting up a frame from it.

JD> http://www.photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=58

JD> I could sorta see and hear the geese circling, but the
JD> in-&-out sun made my eyes water when I tried to
JD> include it in a shot of the goose silhouettes.
JD> With the focus on infinity, I set two stops of plus
JD> compensation, pointed the lens at the sun and shot a
JD> few frames. 
JD> I "knew" I had wasted those frames as well as the rest
JD> of the roll. Maybe some of you feel I did.

JD> Opinions encouraged.

JD> Jack
JD> --- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>>   Thanks Jack.  I was going to trash it last
>> night, but decided, WTF,
>> I'll post it and see what happens.  Glad you liked
>> it.  The pic somehow
>> makes me think of a pigeon prison recreation yard,
>> with all the "boids"
>> hanging out before having to go back to their cells
>> (coops).
>> 
>> Shel 
>> 
>> 
>> > [Original Message]
>> > From: Jack Davis 
>> 
>> > Love it! Especially the pigeon line-up against the
>> > base if the back wall. I don't think the pigeon
>> > distribution could have been better. At least I
>> > couldn't have improved on it if given a chance to
>> > place them.
>> > Perspective of verticals in the iron railing add
>> the 
>> > the needed element for a terrific shot.
>> >
>> > Jack
>> >
>> > --- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/pigeons.html
>> > > 
>> > > K-body, K28/3.5, Fuji Reala ... 
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > Shel 
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> >
>> >
>> > __
>> > Do You Yahoo!?
>> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
>> protection around 
>> > http://mail.yahoo.com 
>> 
>> 
>> 






JD> 
JD> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
JD> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 

PESO: Mendocino Moon Squat

[Jack Davis]

On the return from our recent coast drive, I hesitated
for this "drive-by".
The scan was conveniently done on the Epson 3170. Soft
detail is a lot to ask of this scanner.

http://www.photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=59

Moon was just beginning its shape-distorting plunge
into the lower atmosphere.

Comments encouraged.

Jack 

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: Features I use (formerly the Nine Second Difference)

[Doug Brewer]

On Jul 23, 2005, at 1:38 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:


Doug Brewer said:


Nevertheless, it was more effort than just having to turn on the  
feature.




I guess I'm just way out of the loop.  What's wrong with expending  
a little

effort and time if you're doing something you like?


Indeed. Why whine about having to do the same to learn a different  
kind of camera?

Re: Some InfraRed photos

[Mark Cassino]

I experimented a bit with the Konica IR last summer in both 35mm and 120 
format. (I think I still have a roll of 35mm in the freezer.)


Assuming this is Konica IR 750, the peak sensitivity in the IR spectrum is 
750 nm, with some sensitivity out to ~800nm.  Kodak's HIE is sensitive to 
900 nm,  SFX peters out around 750 nm.  The Konica IR is (was) a great 
film - finer grained than HIE but much much slower. Konica also had an 
anti-halation filter, the absence of which causes most of the handling 
issues with HI.E  So it is easier to handle but lacks the nice 'gauzy' 
effect that the absence of the ant-haliation filter lends to HIE.


- MCC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino Photography
Kalamazoo, MI
www.markcassino.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 8:16 PM
Subject: Re: Some InfraRed photos


 > A friend gave me my first roll of Konica IR film... here are 
some photos

which I shot with it last week and finally had a chance to scan today.

Pentax SV with Super-Takumar f3.5/35mm
and Fisheye-Takumar f4/17mm

http://www.hemenway.com/InfraRed

I used a red filter with the 35mm lens and the fisheye's internal orange
filter.

Whaddaya think?

Jim



Not to bad Jim.
The Konica seems a bit less harsh/grainy than the Kodak HIE i use, but 
that can be a good

thing

Contrast seems a bit more smoother to, but that may be from the difference 
in wave lengths

that the
Konica and Kodak record.
Is'nt the Konica a bit less sensitive.??Not sure how to put that.:-)


Anyway nice work. I like # 5.

Dave

Re: Some InfraRed photos

[Mark Cassino]

Nice shots - I like "Twisted Tree" in particular.

- MCC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino Photography
Kalamazoo, MI
www.markcassino.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- Original Message - 
From: "Jim Hemenway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 5:05 PM
Subject: Some InfraRed photos


A friend gave me my first roll of Konica IR film... here are some photos 
which I shot with it last week and finally had a chance to scan today.


Pentax SV with Super-Takumar f3.5/35mm
and Fisheye-Takumar f4/17mm

http://www.hemenway.com/InfraRed

I used a red filter with the 35mm lens and the fisheye's internal orange 
filter.


Whaddaya think?

Jim

Re: PESO: Hares Foot

[David Savage]

Oh yes! :-)

The reason the frond is so prominent is that it's yellow & the rest of
to foliage is dark green. Probably needs to be fertilised 

Thanks for looking Keith

Dave

On 7/24/05, keithw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Savage wrote:
> 
> > G'Day All,
> >
> > I was out in the yard today and this caught my attention:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/aqx4k
> >
> > It's a cliche I know, but it turned out how I visualised it, so I'm happy 
> > ;-).
> >
> > Comments positive, negative or other always welcome.
> >
> > Dave
> 
> Oh no!
> 
> That's very nice. The way the frond is lit and the rest darker and
> blending in with the bokeh...well, it works very well.
> 
> keith whaley
> 
>

Re: PESO: Hares Foot

[Bruce Dayton]

I think because macro opens up a world that we usually don't see or
notice.  Since I see in color, I want to experience that world in
color.  This example shows that my thinking can be a bit off now and
then.  Some others I have seen have not been nearly as well done.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Saturday, July 23, 2005, 9:51:28 AM, you wrote:

SB> Why not, Bruce?

SB> Shel 


>> [Original Message]
>> From: Bruce Dayton 

>> I'm not usually a fan of B&W macro work

Re: PESO: Hares Foot

[David Savage]

It's not really a macro shot, I was about 2 feet away, I just happened
to have the FA 100 mounted when I saw the scene.

Your right though the original colour version is very boring, but I
shot this with the intention of converting it to B&W.

Thanks for looking & commenting.

Dave

On 7/24/05, Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not usually a fan of B&W macro work, but I have to say, this looks
> wonderful!  Probably better in B&W than color would have done.  Very
> nice work indeed!
> 
> --
> Best regards,
> Bruce
> 
> 
> Saturday, July 23, 2005, 9:16:41 AM, you wrote:
> 
> DS> G'Day All,
> 
> DS> I was out in the yard today and this caught my attention:
> 
> DS> http://tinyurl.com/aqx4k
> 
> DS> It's a cliche I know, but it turned out how I visualised it, so I'm happy 
> ;-).
> 
> DS> Comments positive, negative or other always welcome.
> 
> DS> Dave
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

I think I agree for the most part with Don. However...

Photographs include snapshots: it's a category or type of photograph,  
typified by the kinds of pictures you see in a "family vacation  
album" or "first birthday party album". To me, "snap shots" are  
subject-oriented record photographs, casually handled in technical  
terms. They can be planned or posed as well as more spontaneous grab  
pictures. Good snapshots can be considered an art form until themselves.


BTW: "Hip shots" in street photography are often carefully planned,  
whether or not the viewfinder was used. They're not snapshots.


Godfrey


On Jul 23, 2005, at 11:48 AM, Don Sanderson wrote:


I would say it is a quickly taken shot to record a person,
place or event.
It would be given very little thought as to the technical
details.
Critical focus, composition, exposure, equipment choice,
etc. would all take second place to simply making an
exposure of the "moment".

A not "pre-concieved" shot. Unlike a shot where the picture
is first in your "minds eye" and THEN, AFTER considering
the best way to achieve what you have in mind, make the
exposure. The latter is to me a photograph, the former
a snap shot.

Not unlike "shooting from the hip" versus careful aiming
when using a firearm.

Don



-Original Message-
From: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 2:33 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: What is snapshot? (seriously)


Hi!

Shel responded that my latest PAW was a good snap, nothing more...  
While

I accept what he said, he made me thinking...

What is a snap shot, really??? What is an opposite of snap shot???
Technically, with modern AF cameras the time spent taking the picture
itself is rather short... So what is a snap shot anyway ...

Let us be constructive, ladies and gentlemen. I realize this can  
grow to

a long thread and I want it to be peaceful...

Thanks a lot in advance...

Boris

Re: PESO: Hares Foot

[David Savage]

Thanks Shel. 

Some things just work better in B&W :-)

Glad you liked it.

Dave

On 7/24/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nice ... ;-))
> 
> Shel

Re: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[David Savage]

I was composing my reply when I read this & you've said exactly what I
was trying to say. Even down to the gun reference (great mind's or
fool's, take your pick) 

So all I'll say is "Ditto" :-)

Dave

On 7/24/05, Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would say it is a quickly taken shot to record a person,
> place or event.
> It would be given very little thought as to the technical
> details.
> Critical focus, composition, exposure, equipment choice,
> etc. would all take second place to simply making an
> exposure of the "moment".
> 
> A not "pre-concieved" shot. Unlike a shot where the picture
> is first in your "minds eye" and THEN, AFTER considering
> the best way to achieve what you have in mind, make the
> exposure. The latter is to me a photograph, the former
> a snap shot.
> 
> Not unlike "shooting from the hip" versus careful aiming
> when using a firearm.
> 
> Don
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 2:33 PM
> > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> > Subject: What is snapshot? (seriously)
> >
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > Shel responded that my latest PAW was a good snap, nothing more... While
> > I accept what he said, he made me thinking...
> >
> > What is a snap shot, really??? What is an opposite of snap shot???
> > Technically, with modern AF cameras the time spent taking the picture
> > itself is rather short... So what is a snap shot anyway ...
> >
> > Let us be constructive, ladies and gentlemen. I realize this can grow to
> > a long thread and I want it to be peaceful...
> >
> > Thanks a lot in advance...
> >
> > Boris
> >
> 
>

Re: "crazy" idea for more utility out of old glass on 1.5x DSLRs

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

- How do you drive the older lenses mechanical linkages?

just as you do in extension tubes


Which means that there would be no change from what we have now.


- More optics in the path means performance degradation.

what "more optics"?


See Bill Robb's post.


- Reduced room for an adequate mirror, etc with the "new K" standard
lenses.

sure, with smaller sensor size. is that a problem?


They've already reduced the size of the mirror in the D/DS. The size  
reduction doesn't change the basic layout by much, certainly not by  
10mm in mirror box dimensions.


basically, this is something that has already been done (zoerk  
adapters

for mf lenses -> 35mm cameras).


Again, what's the point of it?


it also means that any "new K" lenses would be completely unusable on
the older Pentax bodies,

and they are not right now anyway (smaller image circle)


Not entirely true. You can use DA lenses on K mount bodies, assuming  
that a 24x24mm image circle is enough to satisfy your needs. In some  
cases, the DA lens might cover the full frame perfectly (DA40/2.8 is  
like that), and Pentax' D-FA lenses are fully optimized for the  
digital sensor while also being 100% compatible with 24x36mm format.



Basically the "through" adapter is like a K-mount teleconverter,
but without any optics.

Then it would do nothing other than add complexity to the lens line.

actually, no.


Once again, what would this do that hasn't been done already with the  
current lens mount? It would create a new, incompatible line of  
lenses, it would allow older lenses to be used but only with an  
adapter. It would NOT change the field of view characteristics of the  
older lenses on the digital sensor bodies at all, not without optics  
to do that, and that would degrade the performance of the lenses that  
you were trying to use as well as cost some speed.


Unless you can articulate exactly what benefit this might have, I see  
no advantage to it whatever.


Godfrey

Re: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[E.R.N. Reed]

Don Sanderson wrote:


I would say it is a quickly taken shot to record a person,
place or event.
It would be given very little thought as to the technical
details.
Critical focus, composition, exposure, equipment choice,
etc. would all take second place to simply making an
exposure of the "moment".

A not "pre-concieved" shot. Unlike a shot where the picture
is first in your "minds eye" and THEN, AFTER considering
the best way to achieve what you have in mind, make the
exposure. The latter is to me a photograph, the former
a snap shot.

Not unlike "shooting from the hip" versus careful aiming
when using a firearm.
 


in response to:


-Original Message-
From: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

What is a snap shot, really??? What is an opposite of snap shot??? 
Technically, with modern AF cameras the time spent taking the picture 
itself is rather short... So what is a snap shot anyway ...


Let us be constructive, ladies and gentlemen. I realize this can grow to 
a long thread and I want it to be peaceful...


In a situation such as this, where it's interesting to know what various 
people think, I believe I am justified in a Me, Too post. I agree with 
Don's description.
(Except to add that I think a snapshot can be a photograph. To me, a 
snapshot is one sort of photograph. Hope that doesn't cause trouble.)


ERNR

RE: What is snapshot? (seriously)

[Don Sanderson]

I would say it is a quickly taken shot to record a person,
place or event.
It would be given very little thought as to the technical
details.
Critical focus, composition, exposure, equipment choice,
etc. would all take second place to simply making an
exposure of the "moment".

A not "pre-concieved" shot. Unlike a shot where the picture
is first in your "minds eye" and THEN, AFTER considering
the best way to achieve what you have in mind, make the
exposure. The latter is to me a photograph, the former
a snap shot.

Not unlike "shooting from the hip" versus careful aiming
when using a firearm.

Don

> -Original Message-
> From: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 2:33 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: What is snapshot? (seriously)
> 
> 
> Hi!
> 
> Shel responded that my latest PAW was a good snap, nothing more... While 
> I accept what he said, he made me thinking...
> 
> What is a snap shot, really??? What is an opposite of snap shot??? 
> Technically, with modern AF cameras the time spent taking the picture 
> itself is rather short... So what is a snap shot anyway ...
> 
> Let us be constructive, ladies and gentlemen. I realize this can grow to 
> a long thread and I want it to be peaceful...
> 
> Thanks a lot in advance...
> 
> Boris
> 

What is snapshot? (seriously)

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!

Shel responded that my latest PAW was a good snap, nothing more... While 
I accept what he said, he made me thinking...


What is a snap shot, really??? What is an opposite of snap shot??? 
Technically, with modern AF cameras the time spent taking the picture 
itself is rather short... So what is a snap shot anyway ...


Let us be constructive, ladies and gentlemen. I realize this can grow to 
a long thread and I want it to be peaceful...


Thanks a lot in advance...

Boris

Re: K15mm for House Interiors

[David Savage]

Nice shots of a nice house. Somewhat cave like though with all that
stonework ;-)

Given the pitched ceiling of the master bedroom you could have been in
real danger of knocking your self out though 

Dave.

On 7/24/05, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They say buying a house is one of the most stressful activities possible.
> They're not kidding, and we haven't even chosen the damned thing.
> 
> We're house-hunting at the mo, and at the risk of jinxing any potential
> purchase, i go to viewings with a camera and do some quick and dirty
> snaps so I can review later over a large glass of impertinent red.
> 
> The Pentax K15mm f/3.5 comes in very useful for this, although on the 1D,
> the image is cropped slightly - still a very good wide angle lens. Here's
> one such house we saw recently. All interiors at 800 ISO wide open at f/
> 3.5 - wasn't watching shutter speed, just snapping away. All shots high
> quality jpeg with AWB, minor adjustment in PS for colour and sharpening.
> Rough and ready.
> 
> 
> 
> (Don't bother if on dial-up - two dozen shots at about 80 kb each, z.)
> 
> I loved the house but my SO didn't, and after an almighty row a few hours
> later, we have passed and are continuing the search for the impossible,
> sigh. Breaks my heart to look at these pics, but I suddenly appreciated
> the Pentax 15mm, and thought I would share. No comments necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
>   Cotty
> 
> 
> ___/\__
> ||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
> ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
> _
> 
> 
>

Re: PAW - On the road to Jerusalem (testing 43 Lim)

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!


This is an interesting photo for me, as I've never imagined Israel with
much forest area, even though I can remember, as a child, contributing  my
pennies to "plant a tree in Israel."  Of course, I don't really know if the
money went towards planting trees or elsewhere, but I do recall that a lot
of us here in the US sent a lot of dollars to our Israeli kith and kin.

Is this a naturally forested area, or has it been planted?


If I am not mistaken, most if not all forests in Israel are planted... I 
am saying this because each time we go for a walk in a forest, I can see 
how regular trees are positioned... May be some places on the North are 
actually natural forests, but my memory is not that good and I haven't 
been to the North for several years...



It would be nice to see this, and other of your photos, larger.  This is
true for the photos of others as well.  Sometimes these commercial sites
have so much extraneous information on the page that the photographs seems
almost incidental.


I generally make it 700 pixels in larger dimension. Then I use Save For 
Web function so as to give me maximal possible quality for size limit of 
150 Kb which is imposed at me by this web site...



It's a nice snap, nothing great, although it provides a nice "feel" for the
area.  Where exactly was this taken?  Where does the dirt road lead?  Is
this a field ready for cultivation, or cleared for building? 


I appreciate your comment and I will probably start a thread with a 
question that you evoked...


This is taken on the road from Nahshon Junction to the south (roughly) 
towards Beit Shemesh... The Beit Shemesh area is full of this kind of 
forests...


The dirt road leads around the field I think. They are growing something 
like corn or sunflowers... But I am not sure... To the best of my 
knowledge there is not going to be any building in this area any time soon.


Thanks for your comments...

Boris

Re: PAW PESO - Pigeons

[P. J. Alling]

That is lovely, very nice composition.

Jack Davis wrote:


Hard for me to believe now, but I shot a roll at Gray
Lodge WA a few years ago that I came scary close to
trashing without processing. I couldn't recall any
possibilities that might make it worth a basic
processing cost.
As you can anticipate, I had it processed and printed.
Am putting up a frame from it.

http://www.photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=58

I could sorta see and hear the geese circling, but the
in-&-out sun made my eyes water when I tried to
include it in a shot of the goose silhouettes.
With the focus on infinity, I set two stops of plus
compensation, pointed the lens at the sun and shot a
few frames. 
I "knew" I had wasted those frames as well as the rest

of the roll. Maybe some of you feel I did.

Opinions encouraged.

Jack
--- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 


  Thanks Jack.  I was going to trash it last
night, but decided, WTF,
I'll post it and see what happens.  Glad you liked
it.  The pic somehow
makes me think of a pigeon prison recreation yard,
with all the "boids"
hanging out before having to go back to their cells
(coops).

Shel 



   


[Original Message]
From: Jack Davis 
 


Love it! Especially the pigeon line-up against the
base if the back wall. I don't think the pigeon
distribution could have been better. At least I
couldn't have improved on it if given a chance to
place them.
Perspective of verticals in the iron railing add
 

the 
   


the needed element for a terrific shot.

Jack

--- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 


wrote:
   


http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/pigeons.html
   

K-body, K28/3.5, Fuji Reala ... 



Shel 




   


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
 

protection around 
   

http://mail.yahoo.com 
 



   









Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 




 




--
When you're worried or in doubt, 
	Run in circles, (scream and shout).

Re: "crazy" idea for more utility out of old glass on 1.5x DSLRs

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Cory Papenfuss"

Subject: Re: "crazy" idea for more utility out of old glass on 1.5x DSLRs



Lots of problems.
- How do you drive the older lenses mechanical linkages?
- More optics in the path means performance degradation.
- Reduced room for an adequate mirror, etc with the "new K" standard 
lenses.


 He suggested changing the registration distance to more match the smaller 
sensor.  That's a good idea.  Basically the "through" adapter is like a 
K-mount teleconverter, but without any optics.  It would probably be about 
1 cm thick.  So:

- Don't lose the ability to drive older mechanical linkage lenses
- Have no additional optics in the path
- Possibly... I haven't thought completely through that part, but as a 
knee-jerk it seems like it should work.  Nothing magical about 35mm as an 
SLR.




Yer adaptor would have to have optics. The flange to focal plane distance is 
part of the lens design. If you change one, you have to either change the 
other (not possible), or put an optical correction in the path to make the 
short back focus you have imposed on the lens possible.


William Robb 

Re: K15mm for House Interiors

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Cotty"

Subject: K15mm for House Interiors



They say buying a house is one of the most stressful activities possible.
They're not kidding, and we haven't even chosen the damned thing.


Try renovating one when you don't know what the hell you are doing.



We're house-hunting at the mo, and at the risk of jinxing any potential
purchase, i go to viewings with a camera and do some quick and dirty
snaps so I can review later over a large glass of impertinent red.

The Pentax K15mm f/3.5 comes in very useful for this, although on the 1D,
the image is cropped slightly - still a very good wide angle lens. Here's
one such house we saw recently. All interiors at 800 ISO wide open at f/
3.5 - wasn't watching shutter speed, just snapping away. All shots high
quality jpeg with AWB, minor adjustment in PS for colour and sharpening.
Rough and ready.



(Don't bother if on dial-up - two dozen shots at about 80 kb each, z.)

I loved the house but my SO didn't, and after an almighty row a few hours
later, we have passed and are continuing the search for the impossible,
sigh. Breaks my heart to look at these pics, but I suddenly appreciated
the Pentax 15mm, and thought I would share. No comments necessary.


Too bad. Looks like a nice place.

William Robb 

Re: PAW PESO - Pigeons

[David Savage]

That's excellent Jack. Damn good thing that you didn't trash it :-)

Dave

On 7/24/05, Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hard for me to believe now, but I shot a roll at Gray
> Lodge WA a few years ago that I came scary close to
> trashing without processing. I couldn't recall any
> possibilities that might make it worth a basic
> processing cost.
> As you can anticipate, I had it processed and printed.
> Am putting up a frame from it.
> 
> http://www.photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=58
> 
> I could sorta see and hear the geese circling, but the
> in-&-out sun made my eyes water when I tried to
> include it in a shot of the goose silhouettes.
> With the focus on infinity, I set two stops of plus
> compensation, pointed the lens at the sun and shot a
> few frames.
> I "knew" I had wasted those frames as well as the rest
> of the roll. Maybe some of you feel I did.
> 
> Opinions encouraged.
> 
> Jack
> --- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >   Thanks Jack.  I was going to trash it last
> > night, but decided, WTF,
> > I'll post it and see what happens.  Glad you liked
> > it.  The pic somehow
> > makes me think of a pigeon prison recreation yard,
> > with all the "boids"
> > hanging out before having to go back to their cells
> > (coops).
> >
> > Shel
> >
> >
> > > [Original Message]
> > > Wrom: NEUQZAAFXI
> >
> > > Love it! Especially the pigeon line-up against the
> > > base if the back wall. I don't think the pigeon
> > > distribution could have been better. At least I
> > > couldn't have improved on it if given a chance to
> > > place them.
> > > Perspective of verticals in the iron railing add
> > the
> > > the needed element for a terrific shot.
> > >
> > > Jack
> > >
> > > --- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/pigeons.html
> > > >
> > > > K-body, K28/3.5, Fuji Reala ...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Shel
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> > protection around
> > > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> 
> 
>

Re: PESO: Hares Foot

[keithw]

David Savage wrote:


G'Day All,

I was out in the yard today and this caught my attention:

http://tinyurl.com/aqx4k

It's a cliche I know, but it turned out how I visualised it, so I'm happy ;-).

Comments positive, negative or other always welcome.

Dave


Oh no!

That's very nice. The way the frond is lit and the rest darker and 
blending in with the bokeh...well, it works very well.


keith whaley

Re: PAW PESO - Stella

[Shel Belinkoff]

Hi Bruce ...

I've got to disagree with you wrt context in general.   Not everything has
to be spelled out or shown (like the difference between listening to the
radio and watching TV).  She could be crying, have an irritation, or
perhaps she's crying because I'm irritating her ;-))

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Bruce Dayton 

> For me, I think a little more context would help.  She is rubbing her
> eyes for some reason - just can't figure out what.  Don't know if she
> is crying or has some irritation or what, but it makes the photo
> incomplete.  If there is no context to show - no reason for the eye
> rub, I would hope to see another shot of her with eyes .
>
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Bruce
>
>
> Saturday, July 23, 2005, 8:40:27 AM, you wrote:
>
> SB> We met Stella while testing lenses in San Francisco last week. She was
> SB> sitting beside us. A conversation ensued, and a few pics were taken.
Here's
> SB> one I liked.
>  
> SB> http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/stella1.html
>  
> SB> This was one of the first pics I took using the istds. It was shot at
3200
> SB> and in JPEG format, and the WB was all wrong for the lighting. The
results
> SB> yielded an image with a fair amount of artifacts and strange
coloration. I
> SB> may go back and fiddle with this some more. Comments on how to
improve this
> SB> would be welcome. Thanks!
>
> SB> Sorry if there's a double post.  I got an error message on the first
one.
>
> SB> Shel 
>
>
>

Re: PAW PESO - Pigeons

[Jack Davis]

Hard for me to believe now, but I shot a roll at Gray
Lodge WA a few years ago that I came scary close to
trashing without processing. I couldn't recall any
possibilities that might make it worth a basic
processing cost.
As you can anticipate, I had it processed and printed.
Am putting up a frame from it.

http://www.photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=58

I could sorta see and hear the geese circling, but the
in-&-out sun made my eyes water when I tried to
include it in a shot of the goose silhouettes.
With the focus on infinity, I set two stops of plus
compensation, pointed the lens at the sun and shot a
few frames. 
I "knew" I had wasted those frames as well as the rest
of the roll. Maybe some of you feel I did.

Opinions encouraged.

Jack
--- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>   Thanks Jack.  I was going to trash it last
> night, but decided, WTF,
> I'll post it and see what happens.  Glad you liked
> it.  The pic somehow
> makes me think of a pigeon prison recreation yard,
> with all the "boids"
> hanging out before having to go back to their cells
> (coops).
> 
> Shel 
> 
> 
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Jack Davis 
> 
> > Love it! Especially the pigeon line-up against the
> > base if the back wall. I don't think the pigeon
> > distribution could have been better. At least I
> > couldn't have improved on it if given a chance to
> > place them.
> > Perspective of verticals in the iron railing add
> the 
> > the needed element for a terrific shot.
> >
> > Jack
> >
> > --- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/pigeons.html
> > > 
> > > K-body, K28/3.5, Fuji Reala ... 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Shel 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> >
> >
> > __
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around 
> > http://mail.yahoo.com 
> 
> 
> 







Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 

Re: "crazy" idea for more utility out of old glass on 1.5x DSLRs

[Mishka]

On 7/23/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> it also means that any "new K" lenses would be completely unusable on
> the older Pentax bodies,

and they are not right now anyway (smaller image circle)

> just like it did for the Canon FL/FD lenses
> when they went to the EOS mount (shorter register by 2mm or so,
> IIRC). I don't think I'd like that.

the idea is to make the old glass useable on new bodies. i don't care
about the other way around. this is completely *unlike* what canon did.
 
> > Basically the "through" adapter is like a K-mount teleconverter,
> > but without any optics.
> 
> Then it would do nothing other than add complexity to the lens line.

actually, no.

mishka

Re: "crazy" idea for more utility out of old glass on 1.5x DSLRs

[Mishka]

On 7/23/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lots of problems.
> - How do you drive the older lenses mechanical linkages?

just as you do in extension tubes

> - More optics in the path means performance degradation.

what "more optics"?

> - Reduced room for an adequate mirror, etc with the "new K" standard
> lenses.

sure, with smaller sensor size. is that a problem?

basically, this is something that has already been done (zoerk adapters
for mf lenses -> 35mm cameras). 

mishka

Re: PESO: Hares Foot

[Shel Belinkoff]

Why not, Bruce?

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Bruce Dayton 

> I'm not usually a fan of B&W macro work

Re: "crazy" idea for more utility out of old glass on 1.5x DSLRs

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Jul 23, 2005, at 9:07 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote:


i think, a much cooler solution would be to
- drastically reduce the film-to-flange distance (kinda like what  
oly did)
- sell a body adapter "new K"->K with the linkages and all, to be  
able to use

the old lenses
- sell a T/S "new K"->K adapter
- plus adapters to all other lens manufacturers.


Lots of problems.
- How do you drive the older lenses mechanical linkages?
- More optics in the path means performance degradation.
- Reduced room for an adequate mirror, etc with the "new K"  
standard lenses.


He suggested changing the registration distance to more match  
the smaller sensor.


The issue with traditional lens mounts for 35mm SLRs when being used  
for DSLRs is that the mount is not large enough diameter for the lens  
designs required for proper telecentricity without reducing the  
format size. That's one of the reasons why the manufacturers went  
with 16x24 format sensors: compatibility with existing mount and lens  
designs. It's a reasonable compromise with the least cost and the  
most usability Canon has been through quite a bit of development with  
the largest mount diameter to fit a 24x36mm sensor.


Register distance is less critical, but the shorter the registration  
gets, the less room you have for mirror mechanism. A mm or two is  
enough for a mount adapter, however ... 1cm shorter is likely  
impossible, mirror dimensions being what they need to be. Of course,  
it also means that any "new K" lenses would be completely unusable on  
the older Pentax bodies, just like it did for the Canon FL/FD lenses  
when they went to the EOS mount (shorter register by 2mm or so,  
IIRC). I don't think I'd like that.


Basically the "through" adapter is like a K-mount teleconverter,  
but without any optics.


Then it would do nothing other than add complexity to the lens line.  
I thought the notion was to try to make the old lenses image wider on  
the smaller format.  You can't make a given focal length lens image  
differently without optics ... a 50mm lens remains a 50mm lens, etc.  
So I don't understand what the point of this "reduced register"  
design would be.


Godfrey

Re: PESO: Hares Foot

[Bruce Dayton]

I'm not usually a fan of B&W macro work, but I have to say, this looks
wonderful!  Probably better in B&W than color would have done.  Very
nice work indeed!

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Saturday, July 23, 2005, 9:16:41 AM, you wrote:

DS> G'Day All,

DS> I was out in the yard today and this caught my attention:

DS> http://tinyurl.com/aqx4k

DS> It's a cliche I know, but it turned out how I visualised it, so I'm happy 
;-).

DS> Comments positive, negative or other always welcome.

DS> Dave

Re: PAW PESO - Stella

[Bruce Dayton]

Hello Shel,

For me, I think a little more context would help.  She is rubbing her
eyes for some reason - just can't figure out what.  Don't know if she
is crying or has some irritation or what, but it makes the photo
incomplete.  If there is no context to show - no reason for the eye
rub, I would hope to see another shot of her with eyes .

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Saturday, July 23, 2005, 8:40:27 AM, you wrote:

SB> We met Stella while testing lenses in San Francisco last week. She was
SB> sitting beside us. A conversation ensued, and a few pics were taken. Here's
SB> one I liked.
 
SB> http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/stella1.html
 
SB> This was one of the first pics I took using the istds. It was shot at 3200
SB> and in JPEG format, and the WB was all wrong for the lighting. The results
SB> yielded an image with a fair amount of artifacts and strange coloration. I
SB> may go back and fiddle with this some more. Comments on how to improve this
SB> would be welcome. Thanks!

SB> Sorry if there's a double post.  I got an error message on the first one.

SB> Shel 

Re: PAW PESO - Pigeons

[Bruce Dayton]

Lots of cool lines and patterns in this one.  I am trying to decide if
the pigeons add to the photo for me or take away from it.  Looking a
little more, I think they add to it.  It would have been quite amusing
had all of them been on one side of the bars - kind of like a jail
cell or something.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Saturday, July 23, 2005, 7:47:06 AM, you wrote:

SB> http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/pigeons.html

SB> K-body, K28/3.5, Fuji Reala ... 


SB> Shel 

Re: PAW PESO - sTELLA

[P. J. Alling]

Shel, At the resolution you've posted it doesn't look that bad.  The 
skin tones are good and artifacts
are not particularly visible.  It might be difficult to get an 
acceptable 8x10 or 9x12, but seems perfectly

acceptable for the web.

Shel Belinkoff wrote:


We met Stella while testing lenses in San Francisco last week.  She was
sitting beside us.  A conversation ensued, and a few pics were taken. 
Here's one I liked.


http:/home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/stella1.html

This was one of the first pics i took using the istds.  Unfortunately, it
was shot at 3200 and in JPEG format, and the WB was all wrong for the
lighting.  The results yielded an image with a fair amount of artifacts and
strange coloration.  I may go back and fiddle with this some more. 
Comments on how to improve this would be welcome.  Thanks!


Shel 




 




--
When you're worried or in doubt, 
	Run in circles, (scream and shout).

RE: PESO: Hares Foot

[Shel Belinkoff]

Nice ... ;-))

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: David Savage

> I was out in the yard today and this caught my attention:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/aqx4k
>
> It's a cliche I know, but it turned out how I visualised it, so I'm happy
;-).
>
> Comments positive, negative or other always welcome.
>
> Dave

Re: PAW PESO - Pigeons

[P. J. Alling]

Ok, so they're flying city rats, but I don't think they prefer cheese...

E.R.N. Reed wrote:


P. J. Alling wrote:

Neat Image, but my foremost thought was, "aren't there any cats in 
San Fransisco..."



"There are No Cats in America, and the streets are paved with cheese 
... "


:-D








--
When you're worried or in doubt, 
	Run in circles, (scream and shout).

Re: PAW PESO - Urban Picnic

[P. J. Alling]

You caught a moment, sometimes no matter how much planning, or how many 
exposures are made, the
moment eludes us.  You caught a moment that makes this just a little bit 
more than the sum of it's parts.


Shel Belinkoff wrote:


Thanks Peter.  I don't think I understand completely what is meant by the
term "nice catch."  Could you, or someone, explain just what is meant by
that term.  I've seen/heard it used a lot, but never understood its meaning
or intent.

Shel 



 


[Original Message]
From: P. J. Alling 
   



 


Nice catch.

Shel Belinkoff wrote:

   


One of a couple of snaps from this scenario:

http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/urban1.html

K-body, K28/3.5, Reala ... 

Shel 






 


--
When you're worried or in doubt, 
	Run in circles, (scream and shout).
   





 




--
When you're worried or in doubt, 
	Run in circles, (scream and shout).

PESO: Hares Foot

[David Savage]

G'Day All,

I was out in the yard today and this caught my attention:

http://tinyurl.com/aqx4k

It's a cliche I know, but it turned out how I visualised it, so I'm happy ;-).

Comments positive, negative or other always welcome.

Dave

Re: PAW PESO - Urban Picnic

[David Savage]

You've caught / captured a moment in time yes?!

This is my understanding, anywho.

Dave

On 7/24/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks Peter.  I don't think I understand completely what is meant by the
> term "nice catch."  Could you, or someone, explain just what is meant by
> that term.  I've seen/heard it used a lot, but never understood its meaning
> or intent.
> 
> Shel
> 
> 
> > [Original Message]
> > Wrom: HPQQWOYIYZUN
> 
> > Nice catch.
> >
> > Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> >
> > >One of a couple of snaps from this scenario:
> > >
> > >http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/urban1.html
> > >
> > >K-body, K28/3.5, Reala ...
> > >
> > >Shel
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > When you're worried or in doubt,
> >   Run in circles, (scream and shout).
> 
> 
>

Re: "crazy" idea for more utility out of old glass on 1.5x DSLRs

[Cotty]

On 23/7/05, Cory Papenfuss, discombobulated, unleashed:

>> Hey you've met Cory before ;-)
>>
>
>
>:P  :)

Actually Cory, my apologies. I wasn't following this thread properly and
I thought you were Cory Waters. So if I may retract the above, and re-
direct it to Ceeb, it's just as applicable !!



Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_